Cast spoilers represent the lifeblood of competitive reality TV fandom. Knowing who's on a season — and more importantly, who was cut — shapes the entire viewing experience for superfans.
Vevmo's spoiler community has built a reputation for accuracy that production companies both fear and respect. The forum's track record speaks for itself.
AEvans5;222552 wrote:Me too. He just looks super annoying for some reason...
Discussion thread about Real World: Back to Las Vegas: Michael Ross with 30 replies from the Vevmo community.
AEvans5;222552 wrote:I agree. I mean I hate to judge him before actually seeing him, but he justs seems like an Andrew kind of guy to me.
Me too! He just looks super annoying for some reason. And we don't need another panda or whatever Andrew used to call himself.
sbrca;232035 wrote:I doubt he is against health care. He is probably against the movement towards a universal health care in the US.
He is a college student at University of Maryland and is against health care. I do not think he has either the academic credentials or real world experience to have an informed opinion about that issue.
sbrca;232035 wrote:Considering all the various political opinions expressed over the years by all the various Real World cast members who were coming from a similar lot, I do not see him having an opinion on health care as being shockingly frivolous nor surprising. Besides, that boat has sailed.
He is a college student at University of Maryland and is against health care. I do not think he has either the academic credentials or real world experience to have an informed opinion about that issue.
SeanDaniel;243285 wrote:Mike Mike is AWESOME.
I don't know. I think the only thing worse than hanging out with an introspective person is watching one on TV, but to each their own.
TheSeenScene;244183 wrote:I get that vibe too. I like it!
I feel like he's truly enjoying being on the show.
mboy19863;248049 wrote:Personally, I don't see him as either homophobic or ignorant. What I do see is someone whose story would have been one of growth in the original format of The Real World where seven strangers stopped being polite and started being real. We might actually have seen some growth (maturity) from the entire cast with the right format. But, now we, the audience, are judge, jury and executioner before all the evidence is in or the accused has an opportunity to testify. We're in danger of becoming the pathetic fast food reaction to episodic reality TV.
what a ******, i cant stand this guy. it was so obvious that he was jealous of dustin. but for him to use his own father as the reason he didnt like dustin was soooo lame. if anyone needs help its michael ross. but then again they dont make a pill for someone that is homophobic. or just plain ignorant. What a ******, I can't stand this guy. It was so obvious that he was jealous of Dustin. But for him to use his own father as the reason he didn't like dustin was soooo lame. If anyone needs help it's Michael Ross. But then again, they don't make a pill for someone that is homophobic, or just plain ignorant.
CrazyHorse;248092 wrote:The "Challenge girl Katie..." One presumes you mean Katie Doyle. You are correct that it is not unrealistic for viewers to draw conclusion, but that is not the point. One's conclusions will vary, however, based upon the data available, the experience of the viewer, and the application of his or her intellectual capacity. Most people do simply respond to what they see before them, as would most any primitive mammal. It probably is a bridge too far to either hope or expect that the mass of reality TV viewers would behave otherwise. However, the regular readers of vevmo do have more information available to them, interact with many with more experience, and as a result increase their own experience level over time. There are a few who come in from among the masses, never have a clue that there is anything more available to them than the few lines on the screen in front of them or don't care to easily search the site for information. These individuals leave us the warm ***** of their wisdom based only on what they saw during an episode. They then depart, leaving the rest of us to deal with the egalitarian nature of the Internet where at first blush all are equal. What I continually hope for is the regular nurturing of those who combine what they see with the other information available here and elsewhere (twitter, for example, offers interesting insights into any cast, but must be warily measured), who then weigh of all that data through the filter of our collective experience with reality TV by applying their intellectual capacity to the exercise in order to reach conclusions of merit. It may not be unrealistic for someone to conclude instantly that "Mike is homophobic." or "Nany (or Heather) is a ****." I'll not, however, be swayed from my own view that such statements, absolutely void of an intellectual rigor in their defense as fact, represent nothing more than a simple Pavlovian response to what appeared on the screen, complete with accompanying "mood music" to cue the desired emotional response. I hope it's not too much to export more.
I don't think it is unrealistic for viewers to draw conclusions based on what they have in front of them at any given time. The Challenge girl Katie even talks about doing that in the podcast she did with that Derrick guy. I'm not sure there is anything we can do in the audience to change how MTV does it shows. We can watch or not watch, but we cannot do anything about pushing them to edit one way or the other. The only feedback they seem to think about are ratings and I watch even when the episodes aren't great just because that is what MTV is showing at the time I watch MTV. ...
V1man;248102 wrote:Not to speak of the fact that we only see those people once a week on screen from great distance. I always have to remind myself that me and my friends do some pretty dumb stuff or say ignorant things every once in a while, too, and that it's very short-sighted to judge someone harshly just because one only sees their most "entertaining/ignorant/aggressive" moments which is not necessarily an accurate represantation of their true personality.
It may not be unrealistic for someone to conclude instantly that "Mike is homophobic." or "Nany (or Heather) is a ****." I'll not, however, be swayed from my own view that such statements, absolutely void of an intellectual rigor in their defense as fact, represent nothing more than a simple Pavlovian response to what appeared on the screen, complete with accompanying "mood music" to cue the desired emotional response. I hope it's not too much to export more.
CrazyHorse;248112 wrote:Unfortunately that seems to be the bandwagon that a bunch of non-thinkers have jumped on. No worries, though; something else will come along to attract their attention soon. All we need is a shining object that twirls...
Why do people think Mike is homophobic? Just because he doesn't like a guy who did gay **** doesn't mean he hates gays. Did I miss something or does not liking a gay person for any reason suddenly make you a hate criminal?
CrazyHorse;248112 wrote:I don't think he is homophobic; however I do think that he is very insensitive and not open minded.
Why do people think Mike is homophobic? Just because he doesn't like a guy who did gay **** doesn't mean he hates gays. Did I miss something or does not liking a gay person for any reason suddenly make you a hate criminal?
V1man;248121 wrote:I stopped reading after "shining object" and went straight to this:
Unfortunately that seems to be the bandwagon that a bunch of non-thinkers have jumped on. No worries, though; something else will come along to attract their attention soon. All we need is a shining object that twirls...
He intrigues me and I can't to see what he's like on the show...
— Cait3223